Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[JBeukema]

I'm sorry - when did we start legislating morality?

About the time we made rape, theft, and murder illegal

Then, of course, there are mandatory reporting laws

 

[JBeukema]

Yes. Among other things, it is meaningless to the issue, as the HCI mandate isn't associated with it in any way shape or form.

you're evading again

Answering your question and then pointing out that someting is irrelevant to something I said isn't evading, it's addressing thr question and then refusing to follow a red herring.

So if only 'all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section.... of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.' had to buy health insurance, we'd be all good?

The specific power is:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States...

The requirement of the militiaman to equip himself falls clearly under 'organizing' and 'arming' the militia.

No, handing him a gun would constitute arming the militia.

I'm not sure you could make an argument that requiring the memebers of the militia to also purchase HCI falls under 'organizing', 'arming' or 'disciplining', but if you want to give it a shot, I'll let you.

A well-regulated militia means, in part, a militia that is kept in such order and condition as to be able fight. This includes physical health and fitness. Hence many of the drills. By extension, this means requiring members of the militia to take certain measures to ensure they remain able-bodied. Enrollment in approved medical coverage therefore is next to participation in military drills and training.

 

[JBeukema]

you're evading again

Answering your question and then pointing out that someting is irrelevant to something I said isn't evading, it's addressing thr question and then refusing to follow a red herring.


The specific power is:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States...

The requirement of the militiaman to equip himself falls clearly under 'organizing' and 'arming' the militia. I'm not sure you could make an argument that requiring the memebers of the militia to also purchase HCI falls under 'organizing', 'arming' or 'disciplining', but if you want to give it a shot, I'll let you.

More broad brush interpretation from the hack who says there shouldn't be any broad interpretation to the constitution even as he make shite up and pulls his interpretations out of thin air. LOL

According to your own excerpt congress shall arm and organize them. It doesn't say anything about having them organize and arm themselves at their own expense. So why do you pretend that it does??

Because he can't address the actual matter at hand

 

[JBeukema]

I personally don't care whether it's 'constitutional' or not. Hell, slavery was fucking constitutional. The bottom line is it is wrong, regardless of what the Constitution says.

I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds- I don't give a damn what the constitution or the supreme court has to say about it.

.

Funny how M14 and the others never touch this one

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry - when did we start legislating morality?

About the time we made rape, theft, and murder illegal

Those things aren't illegal because they are immoral, they are illegal because they are acts that violate the rights of the victim.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm sorry - when did we start legislating morality?

About the time we made rape, theft, and murder illegal

Those things aren't illegal because they are immoral, they are illegal because they are acts that violate the rights of the victim.

So... is it immoral to violate someone's rights? Or is it illegal to violate their rights because it's a good thing?


If you weren't an idiot, you'd have argued the line of social contract and not wanting to be harmed regardless of any ultimate moral question. Staking your argument in the rhetoric of 'rights' firmly plants it within the moral realm. Especially when you have to tell us where those rights come from.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, handing him a gun would constitute arming the militia.

Yes, it would. But, the requirement that he arms himself does the same thing.

The power may be exercised as Congres deems necessary and proper; if Congress decides the necessary and proper method for arming the militia is that the militiamen provide their own basic weapon and equipment - which is the historical among militia - then that's what happens. Nothing about the power necessitates that the only way it can be exercised is for Congress to provide the weapons

I'm not sure you could make an argument that requiring the memebers of the militia to also purchase HCI falls under 'organizing', 'arming' or 'disciplining', but if you want to give it a shot, I'll let you.

A well-regulated militia means, in part, a militia that is kept in such order and condition as to be able fight...

Aside from the fact that this is not what "well-regulated" means....
What's that have to do with the powers given to Congress - to organize, arm and discipline the militia?

This includes physical health and fitness. Hence many of the drills.

Drills are meant to create discipline, unit cohesion, and gain proficiency in the martial arts - thse drills are not intended as conditioning.

By extension, this means requiring members of the militia to take certain measures to ensure they remain able-bodied.

Ok... but where does that fall in the powers granted to Congress in regards to the militia?
Arming? How so?
Organizing? How so?
Disciplining? Hoe so?

 

[M14 Shooter]

About the time we made rape, theft, and murder illegal

Those things aren't illegal because they are immoral, they are illegal because they are acts that violate the rights of the victim.

So... is it immoral to violate someone's rights? Or is it illegal to violate their rights because it's a good thing?

I said what I said in plain English.
If you do not understand what I said - and given your response, that's a good bet - its because you either can not, or you choose not.
I'm on the fence with that one.

In either case, what I said is absolutely correct. Those acts are illegal not because they are immoral, but because they violste the rights of the victims. Governments are set forth by man to protect the rights to right, liberty and property, not impose some version of morality upon its people.

If you weren't an idiot...

If you were an idiot, your discussion skills would be significantly improved.

 

[JBeukema]

No, handing him a gun would constitute arming the militia.

Yes, it would. But, the requirement that he arms himself does the same thing.

The requirement that you get yourself health insurance provides for the general welfare.

The power may be exercised as Congres deems necessary and proper

ditto

A well-regulated militia means, in part, a militia that is kept in such order and condition as to be able fight...

Aside from the fact that this is not what "well-regulated" means

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss

He's clearly talking about making sure the militia is in such condition as to be able to perform its function

This isn't possible without be in good physical health- hence why the militia is made of the able-bodied.


​

 

[JBeukema]

You know... if you had any principles, you wouldn't be relying on how you can spin the words of men who died 200 years ago to determine whether any given piece of legislation is right or wrong.

I personally don't care whether it's 'constitutional' or not. Hell, slavery was fucking constitutional. The bottom line is it is wrong, regardless of what the Constitution says.

I oppose the mandate on ethical/moral grounds- I don't give a damn what the constitution or the supreme court has to say about it.

You would defend slavery because it was 'constitutional' and oppose abolition because it was 'unconstitutional'

Do you have any real values at all?

 

[JBeukema]

Those things aren't illegal because they are immoral, they are illegal because they are acts that violate the rights of the victim.

So... is it immoral to violate someone's rights? Or is it illegal to violate their rights because it's a good thing?

I said what I said in plain English.

You're dodging again. Answer the question.

Is it immoral to violate someone's rights? Or is it illegal to violate their rights because it's a good thing?

In either case, what I said is absolutely correct.

You've said absolutely nothing.

Those acts are illegal not because they are immoral

So violating someone's rights isn't immoral?

, but because they violste the rights of the victims.

And that's a bad thing... why?


Have you ever actually thought about anything you've been taught to think?

Governments are set forth by man to protect the rights to right, liberty and property​

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Nope, the rhetoric you're thinking of isn't in that mission statement.


Systems of government arise through the social contract as a means of enforcing ethics and societal norms, arranging for mutual defense, and otherwise organizing our collective efforts and actions.

, not impose some version of morality upon its people

Except you just said the opposite- that it's tasked with 'protecting rights'- a concept deeply rooted in moral philosophy. Indeed, the very concept of 'rights' that you allude to is a matter of morality- these 'rights' are imagined to exist ['given' by some deity or another, even if this is thinly veiled] and it is considered 'wrong' [read:immoral] to 'violate' or 'infringe' them.

The Liberals whose rhetoric you parrot always made it clear which god they thought these rights came from,

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, handing him a gun would constitute arming the militia.

Yes, it would. But, the requirement that he arms himself does the same thing.

The requirement that you get yourself health insurance provides for the general welfare.

Article I Sec 8:1 gives Congress the power to raise revenue and spend it, and nothing else.
If the theory you're trying to put forth here were sound, there's be no need for any of the 16 clauses that follow it. That it was necessary to include those clauses, so that Congress could provide for the common defense and the general welfare, necessarily indicates that your theory is unsound.

In other words: Your response here is meaningless.

A well-regulated militia means, in part, a militia that is kept in such order and condition as to be able fight...

This doesnt address what was put to you.

We're discussing the power to arm, organize and disciplibe the militia.
You're arging that by extension, this means requiring members of the militia to take certain measures to ensure they remain able-bodied

I asked you, and you failed to answer:
Where does that fall in the powers granted to Congress in regards to the militia?
Arming? How so?
Organizing? How so?
Disciplining? Hoe so?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So... is it immoral to violate someone's rights? Or is it illegal to violate their rights because it's a good thing?

I said what I said in plain English.

You're dodging again. Answer the question.

Your question does not follow from anything I said, and as such is a red herring.
Any immoralty attached to the violation of someone's right is subjective and incidental.

You've said absolutely nothing.

You're simply in denial, knowing that you (again) cannot effectively address what's been put to you.

So violating someone's rights isn't immoral?

Again:
Any immoralty attached to the violation of someone's right is subjective and incidental.

And that's a bad thing... why?

There's no moral judgement involved.
Government was instituted to protect the rights of its people. It does this, in part, by oiutlawing actions that violate those rights. Morality isnt involved.

Have you ever actually thought about anything you've been taught to think?

Obviously far more so than you, given that you have yet to do anything but offer straw men, non-sequitur and ad hom in response to completely valid points.

Governments are set forth by man to protect the rights to right, liberty and property

Yes. The -actual- quote goes:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

See, I didnt make this up - its a bedrock principle of our form of government.
Why do you think governments are instituted among men in order to force upon those men some subjective version of morality?

Except you just said the opposite- that it's tasked with 'protecting rights'- a concept deeply rooted in moral philosophy.

On the contrary - there's nothnig moral or immoral about the violation OR protection of rights, and the protection of those rights is not based on the idea that it is moral or immoral to violate them. The rights exist; each man has the right to protect those rights the the best he can. To better do this, man instituted government, which then, to at least some degree, does for each individual what that individual would otherwise have to do for himself. Government is, at its basic level, is a societal outsourcing of the right to self-defense.

Your notion that there -must- be some form of morality attached to the individual or collective presevation of rights, or the existence of the rights in and of themselves is unsupportable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You know... if you had any principles, you wouldn't be relying on how you can spin the words of men who died 200 years ago to determine whether any given piece of legislation is right or wrong.

You know... if you just want to discuss your own pwersonal version of morality, I'm not interested. Your version of right and wrong, a subjective statement of personal values, means nothing to anyone but you, and as such, does not form the basis of a sound argument.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How is owning a gun going to prevent my house from being robbed?

The same way having health "care" (I think you meant insurance not care) can help you from going bankrupt...its a personal protection.

Not really the same. If you have health insurance then you are covered if you need healthcare (within the limits of your plan of course) which can "help you from going bankrupt." Merely having a gun in your house does nothing to prevent it from being robbed.
They are two completely difference issues that can't be compared realistically.

And merely having health insurance doesn't guarantee an illness won't make you go bankrupt.

The part of the two issues we are talking about...the mandating of a purchase of a product from a private company....are very similar and can easliy be compared as long as you haven't lost your common sense.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Others more educated than you and I see it differently than your narrow interpretation. My guess is that you know that already which is why you choose such a narrow focus. LOL

IF you actually believe your edit, it explains exactly why it is a stupid analogy. IF the state and fed powers are so different as your narrow view suggests it is in these two instances then to compare the state's mandate to the fed's mandate is a stupid analogy.

My state's constitution allows for the mandating of healthcare. The federal government is not granted this authority by the constitution (see 10th ammendment if you dind't already) therefore it is the domain of the states.

If your state's constitution says your state can not mandate health insurance then your state doesn't mandate it.

You seem to throw the words stupid and narrow around a lot while your flailing about tyring to discredit what I said.

It's funny how in this instance you understand there is a difference between state constitutions and yet in the previous post you pretended NOT to as you asked me how what i said was any different that you repeating the phrase "the 10th amendment" when I was talking about the differences. LOL

Furthermore, I merely answered YOUR question as to why it was "stupid" and instead of addressing the answer to YOUR question you took the low road and decided to try and make this about me. That attempt at avoidance shows that you know it was indeed a "stupid analogy."

IF you actually believe your edit, it explains exactly why it is a stupid analogy. IF the state and fed powers are so different as your narrow view suggests it is in these two instances then to compare the state's mandate to the fed's mandate is a stupid analogy

Try not to trip over yourself as you avoid it this time. LOL

I understood it in both posts and my question still stands. I'm not avoiding anything you are totally spinning it all.

The mandates are comparable....both the state law and federal law are mandating that people must purchase a product from a private company which I find to be wrong.

My difference between the 2 stems from the 10th......the state can mandate the gun purchase and health insurance purchase (hence me bringing up my own state's law on it)while the federal government can not mandate health insurance or gun purchases.

Why are you trying to avoid the basic truths and spin it so that for some reason its ok that the feds violate the US constitution?

 

[Bern80]

My state's constitution allows for the mandating of healthcare. The federal government is not granted this authority by the constitution (see 10th ammendment if you dind't already) therefore it is the domain of the states.

If your state's constitution says your state can not mandate health insurance then your state doesn't mandate it.

You seem to throw the words stupid and narrow around a lot while your flailing about tyring to discredit what I said.

It's funny how in this instance you understand there is a difference between state constitutions and yet in the previous post you pretended NOT to as you asked me how what i said was any different that you repeating the phrase "the 10th amendment" when I was talking about the differences. LOL

Furthermore, I merely answered YOUR question as to why it was "stupid" and instead of addressing the answer to YOUR question you took the low road and decided to try and make this about me. That attempt at avoidance shows that you know it was indeed a "stupid analogy."

IF you actually believe your edit, it explains exactly why it is a stupid analogy. IF the state and fed powers are so different as your narrow view suggests it is in these two instances then to compare the state's mandate to the fed's mandate is a stupid analogy

Try not to trip over yourself as you avoid it this time. LOL

I understood it in both posts and my question still stands. I'm not avoiding anything you are totally spinning it all.

The mandates are comparable....both the state law and federal law are mandating that people must purchase a product from a private company which I find to be wrong.

My difference between the 2 stems from the 10th......the state can mandate the gun purchase and health insurance purchase (hence me bringing up my own state's law on it)while the federal government can not mandate health insurance or gun purchases.

Why are you trying to avoid the basic truths and spin it so that for some reason its ok that the feds violate the US constitution?

The distinction between the state and fed is of course important and is what the left is using as an excuse to say the two aren't comparable. So why don't we just cut to the chase libs;

IF the federal government were to mandate that everyone must buy a firearm, would you argue that is constitutional as well?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It's funny how in this instance you understand there is a difference between state constitutions and yet in the previous post you pretended NOT to as you asked me how what i said was any different that you repeating the phrase "the 10th amendment" when I was talking about the differences. LOL

Furthermore, I merely answered YOUR question as to why it was "stupid" and instead of addressing the answer to YOUR question you took the low road and decided to try and make this about me. That attempt at avoidance shows that you know it was indeed a "stupid analogy."

IF you actually believe your edit, it explains exactly why it is a stupid analogy. IF the state and fed powers are so different as your narrow view suggests it is in these two instances then to compare the state's mandate to the fed's mandate is a stupid analogy

Try not to trip over yourself as you avoid it this time. LOL

I understood it in both posts and my question still stands. I'm not avoiding anything you are totally spinning it all.

The mandates are comparable....both the state law and federal law are mandating that people must purchase a product from a private company which I find to be wrong.

My difference between the 2 stems from the 10th......the state can mandate the gun purchase and health insurance purchase (hence me bringing up my own state's law on it)while the federal government can not mandate health insurance or gun purchases.

Why are you trying to avoid the basic truths and spin it so that for some reason its ok that the feds violate the US constitution?

The distinction between the state and fed is of course important and is what the left is using as an excuse to say the two aren't comparable. So why don't we just cut to the chase libs;

IF the federal government were to mandate that everyone must buy a firearm, would you argue that is constitutional as well?

And back to page 1

 

[Bern80]

I understood it in both posts and my question still stands. I'm not avoiding anything you are totally spinning it all.

The mandates are comparable....both the state law and federal law are mandating that people must purchase a product from a private company which I find to be wrong.

My difference between the 2 stems from the 10th......the state can mandate the gun purchase and health insurance purchase (hence me bringing up my own state's law on it)while the federal government can not mandate health insurance or gun purchases.

Why are you trying to avoid the basic truths and spin it so that for some reason its ok that the feds violate the US constitution?

The distinction between the state and fed is of course important and is what the left is using as an excuse to say the two aren't comparable. So why don't we just cut to the chase libs;

IF the federal government were to mandate that everyone must buy a firearm, would you argue that is constitutional as well?

And back to page 1

And yet I haven't found a simple yes or no.

 

[Big Fitz]

Quote:
So violating someone's rights isn't immoral?


Again:
Any immoralty attached to the violation of someone's right is subjective and incidental.

Law was granted a divorce from morality in the 1910's. Thanks to the Wilson era Supreme Court and legal thinkers of the day. Congrats. Another fruit of socialism/collectivist theory.

Your notion that there -must- be some form of morality attached to the individual or collective presevation of rights, or the existence of the rights in and of themselves is unsupportable.

It's funny really. I would like to know WHO'S morality will be shoved on people? The morality that demands abortion be made illegal? The one that claims a man has no individual property and does not have a right to what he works for and earns? The one that wishes to normalize homosexuality? The one that views man as having no rights save what the government grants him?

Who's Morality is it?